Winner: Dinner for Schmucks

Another boring poll led to another underwhelming turnout at the polls this week. Once again, the winning film didn't have much in the way of competition, as Winner: Dinner for Schmucks easily beat Winner: Cats and Dogs and Winner: Charlie St. Cloud.

I will be shooting for the 48 Hour film contest this weekend but I will see the movie as soon as is humanly possible!

What I have been up to the last couple weeks....

Some of my more loyal readers might have noticed a slight decline in my amount of posts. This does not reflect at all on my loyalty to you all, or to my interest in writing these articles. Rather, I have actually for the first time in months been actually BUSY! Which is refreshing, if only a little bit.

First of all, I have become involved in the 48 Hour Film project, a film contest where teams from cities all over the world are given two days to write, shoot, and edit a short film containing some secret elements to eliminate cheating. I am working with Dangling Carrot Films and producer Anthony LaRocca, and will be directing the film. The kick off to the event is tonight at seven, so for forty eight hours after that, don't expect to hear from me!

Also, I am very lucky to announce that I have been hired on as a pre-production intern/location scout for Black Wing Digital, an independent production company based in Boulder. They are currently in development phase for Mind's Eye, a cerebral mind bending thriller. I have been tasked with helping to find suitable locations for the film.

So, that's what I have been up to lately as far as my own career goes. This blog has been lacking a personal touch as of now, so I will try to keep updating you all on my own endeavors as often as needed.

Greg

Salt

I had the privilege of spending last weekend in rural Nebraska. I was worried that the four horse town I was staying in would prevent me from watching your selection, Salt, but to my pleasant surprise my parents and I came across the Eagle Theater, a four screen movie theater that looked to date back to at least the fifties. Tickets were six dollars, and we got two bottles of water, a small popcorn, a box of junior mints and a bag of Reeses Pieces for eight. Talk about culture shock. The theater itself was cozy, art-deco inspired, and had very nice seats. I actually got to look upwards at the screen, which I love but can only do from the front row around these parts. So all and all, even before the movie began this was my most enjoyable and surprising excursion to the cinema yet this summer. I might have to trek to the Eagle every weekend.



As for the film itself, Salt didn't disappoint, although considering I did not go in to the theater with very high expectations I should elaborate.

Let me just say first off that it is refreshing to finally see a film like this centered around a strong female lead. Angelina Jolie plays her role with an unnerving confidence, while also portraying an inner vulnerability. Roles such as this, double agents or double-double agents or whatever, are always tricky, when you have to convey something to the audience while concealing it from the other characters. Difficult stuff, but something Salt pulls off admirably well. So major points for having a girl up there, kicking ass.

Unfortunately, the film as a whole is not a vehicle worthy of Jolie's talents. Instead of really going in a different direction with the female spy angle, it seems copied and pasted into the same spy flick formula from the Bourne films, Die Hard, and many others. Jolie's Evelyn Salt is desexualized to the point where it is not out of the realm of possibility to imagine the entire film with a man in the role instead. In fact, this is exactly how the project came about. Tom Cruise stepped out, Jolie came in, and the filmmakers thought that was enough. Well, it keeps the film above the rest of the schlocky action flicks of recent years, but only barely. For the little amount that Salt is unusual for having a female lead, it is very much cliched in every other aspect.

And the worst cliche of all is implausibility. Salt could have been such a smart movie, but instead it devolves into some of the usual tricks, plus inventing some of its own.

Among the "wow really?" eye rolling moments: Jolie emptying an assault rifle into a three foot thick wall to drill through it to a lock release mechanism, Jolie surviving and walking away uninjured from a forty foot fall inside a police car, and the best of all, moments after a man says, "once this door is shut, God himself couldn't get through", a swat team uses a blow torch to easily get through it. Bad, bad ,writing.

Salt at least kept me entertained though. The entire film is literally action packed, essentially an hour long chase scene with the occasional assassination thrown in. Jolie, despite looking like Kate Moss, manages to savagely beat down every body-armored 230 pound SWAT officer in her path. The film's story provides adequate twists and turns, enough to keep even me guessing until the end an ending which naturally sets up the inevitable Salt franchise. Lets only hope that the filmmakers in charge can do more with Salt's feminine side next time around; that would have been much more interesting than Bourne with breasts.


Attendance: 2/5
Crazy Fan Boy Factor: 0/5
Crowd Response: 2/5

-----------------------------------------------------

Production Value: 4/5
Action: 4/5
Acting Performances: 4/5
Implausibility: 5/5, too high to ignore.

Overall: 6/10

Top Five "Mind Benders"

In honor of the recent release of Inception, I decided to compile a list of my favorite cerebral flicks.

A "mind bender" is a film that challenges the audience in one or several of many different ways, perhaps with a non-linear plot or with a difficult to comprehend subject matter. These films are typically independent "artsy" works.

Having gone to film school for four years, I have seen plenty of these such films. Keep i mind I am not rating on the confusing-ness of the film alone, but rather that paired with my own enjoyment.

5. That Obscure Object of Desire



Luis Bunuel, the father of surrealist film, is to this day best known for his film collaboration with Salvador Dali in Un Chien Andalou. That film is easily more mind destroying than any on this list but I didn't really care for it. That Obscure Object of Desire, on the other hand, I greatly enjoyed. The film was Bunuel's last, but he continued his penchant for making audiences scratch their heads through some ingenious directorial decisions.

See the two girls in the picture above? Well, they happen to be the same person. Not in real life, of course, but in the film. They play the same character, Conchita, who personifies the desires of the main character Mathieu. Speaking, of, he is a lot older than both actresses, making their romantic tryst quite creepy. Finally there is a band of terrorists running around causing havoc for no apparent reason. If you aren't confused by this film, apply for MENSA.

The device of having two actresses playing one character is this film's defining legacy. Bunuel was the only director who could pull that trick off. He didn't do it for a thematic reason, having one girl turn into the other when she was angry/sad/horny/etc (Hulk syndrome). He hired both actresses and they came in on alternating days. Simple as that. And yet the move prompted endless discussions on Bunuel's decision, perhaps how one actress related to "desire" in a different way than the other, or one represented temptation, the other virginity, blah blah blah ad nauseum... that is one of the true signs of a mind bender; the amount of IMDB forum posts.

4. Blow-Up



Admittedy, I am not a big Michelangelo Antonioni fan. I find most of his work to be pretentious, overly long, boring, and sleep inducing.

So I was pleasantly surprised when Blow-Up kept me not only wide awake, but actually riveted. The film deals with a photographer who believes he may have mistakenly photographed a murder. His suspicions are heightened when a body turns up, then disappears, then reappears... it is all quite discombobulating (its a word look it up). By the end of the film, we still are not sure that a murder did in fact take place.

And then there are those pesky mimes.

Much like the terrorists in That Obscure Object of Desire, the mimes permeate the film, coming in and out, seeming entirely out of place... until they somehow wrap everything up at the end.

The film is about perception versus reality, and a bunch of other deep stuff. Plus it has a rare cameo performance from the Yardbirds sandwiched in for some reason.

3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind



Like Bunuel's work, a casting decision helps the confusion spread, but Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has much more going for it than that. Some nifty forced perspective photography, bizarre flash backs and flash forwards, and scenes that get erased from existence right before our eyes, all add up to make Eternal Sunshine a bizarre love story that will pull on your heart strings while simultaneously reminding the audience that our memories make us who we are. Without them, things go just plain screwy.

Like Inception, much of this film takes place within the fabric of the characters' minds. Arguably the version of the subconcious that we see here is more convincing. Director Michel Gondry did a great job capturing the ephemeral nature of memory. Pretty scary to think what our lives would be like without it... see below for more on that.

2. American Psycho



Some of the other movies on this list are subtle in their insanity, delving carefully into areas of the human psyche and trying to impart some layer of meaning into the viewer. American Psycho does all that, but is in your face, bat shit insane, and not shy about it.

Christian Bale was born to play Patrick Bateman, the main character who is never at a loss for words ("I have to return some video tapes"). A stereotype from a materialistic chauvinistic society, Bateman speaks in sales pitches, hires prostitutes, and, oh yeah, kills people on the side. There are mistaken identities, plot twists, and bizarre moments aplenty in this film, and at the end we are left wondering, was it all real?

While it is indeed confusing on a first watch, American Psycho revels in its strangeness. Some of Bateman's off the wall lines are classics.

1. Memento



My favorite overall movie also happens to fall into the "mind bender" category, so naturally it takes the top spot!

People who try to sum up the plot will say that it goes backwards and leave it at that; but to reduce it to that is to over-simplify the genius of the film. It starts in two different places, and then meets in the middle! One story goes backwards, the other forwards. As if that wasn't enough, the plot happens to concern a mystery being solved by a man who can not make memories. No problem, as he tattoos the most vital clues on his body and leaves himself notes to help in his daily routine. The only question is, can he trust himself?

Here is writer/director Christopher Nolan's reasoning behind the uniqueness of Memento's narrative structure: if the main character doesn't have a clue what just happened to him, why should the audience?

Memento, like these other films, is great because it doesn't spoon feed any information to the viewer. Sometimes, letting people figure things out for themselves can lead to a much more rewarding and entertaining cinema experience.

Featured New Release Poll- 7/30

As one poll closes, another one opens, and you, dear readers, are once again called upon to decide my movie-going fate.

Next week there are three studio movies opening in wide release.

First we have Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, which is apparently a continuation of a series but I have no idea, honestly. Something about dogs and cats engaging in kiddy friendly warfare. I don't know.

The second selection is Charlie St. Cloud, what looks to be a weepy romance about Zac Efron on a sail boat. Oh yeah and ghosts. Well thats what I got from the trailer I saw before Eclipse anyway.

Finally we have Dinner for Schmucks, this summer's entry in the raunchy comedy genre which has been popularized recently by The Hangover and Superbad. It stars Paul Rudd as a douchebag, Steve Carrell as an out of touch idiot, and Jeff Dunham as a ventriloquist. Wow, what a stretch that was.

An interesting group, to be sure. But only ONE can have the supreme honor of being viewed by me (no more ties!!!), so get on the poll and vote please!

Winner: Salt

Poll just closed, and its another landslide. Angelina Jolie and Salt easily beat out Ramona and Beezus with 90% of the votes. So, I will go check it out and let you, my devoted readers, know what I think. The things I do for this blog... (sigh)

Inception

I really feel that the more I say about the film, the more disservice I do to those who want to see it. It is best to go in completely fresh so I will refrain from any synopsis here. If you go to Frank Costanza levels to avoid spoilers, might as well not read any of this, just go see the film!




Anyone who has ever dreamed has surely made note of the fact that the dream world operates with a different set of rules, as far as time and space are concerned.

Christopher Nolan's latest film Inception takes these rules and sets an entire movie around them, playing with the audience up until the very last shot cuts to black.

The effect is... bold, brilliant, entertaining, confusing.... all of the above.

I had a very strange experience with my first viewing of this film. Going in to the night, I was beyond excited. This has been my most anticipated film since it was first announced, and frankly there aren't any movies on the horizon that look to measure that level of excitement.

I went to the midnight showing with Stephanie and my friends Jeff, Casey and Greyson, not sure if it would be modestly crowded (ala Toy Story) or swamped (more akin to Eclipse but with fewer Team Jacob T-shirts).

Sadly, neither proved to be the case. There was NO LINE. By the time the previews started, the theater was only half full, as it remained. Needless to say, this was disappointing.

My disappointment continued as Inception began, a nonstop barrage of pretty images and characters yes but for the life of me, I had no idea what was happening. Was this going to be the biggest disappointment of the summer, nay, my life?

In a word: No. In two words, hell no! Once again, Christopher Nolan has constructed a cerebral thriller that pulls no punches, forcing the viewer to struggle initially but then rewarding that first grasp of understanding with a eureka moment which pays off for the rest of the film.

Those who have seen Memento should already be familiar with this arrangement.

The last hour or so Inception completely erased any doubts I had through the first act; not only is this movie not a disappointment, it is one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen.

What Nolan has managed to do here is make a brainy action thriller that combines the mind-bending plot of indie thriller Memento with the enormous budget and action set pieces of summer blockbuster The Dark Knight. In other words, a movie that should be enjoyed by just about anyone (to those complaining that the plot is too hard to follow; Inception is more cohesive than anything Michael Bay has done so shut your traps).

Nolan also proves once again that he is a great action director, forming grand set pieces that could indeed only be dreamt of.

In other words, Inception is a miraculous and harmonious blend of plot and action, something that is rarely seen.

As for weaknesses, well there are a few, generally in the acting category. Don't get me wrong the performances are solid, but just not up to snuff with the perfection of the rest of the film.

Of course, Leo's work is great as usual. Marion Cotillard plays his wife and brings a wonderful nostalgic bent to her scenes. I could see either of them getting Oscar nods.

I have never liked Ellen Page since Juno so perhaps I am biased but I never really cared for her character or her portrayal. Ariadne serves mostly as a vessel for much needed exposition though so I have to thank her for that.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur was awkward and underused in the first act, but by the end he was my favorite character. His scenes in the hotel were just amazing, my favorite part of the entire film.

Underlooked will be Cillian Murphy, who stands out in his supporting role as Fischer, the target of "inception".


The film ended and my friends and I looked at each other, agape and/or grinning huge grins. Stephanie didn't like it quite as much as we, but still did enjoy it, less for the plot than for the action and effects.

Overall, the night was perfect save for the poor turn out. Word of mouth is going to make Inception huge, I predict. And I intend to do my part, so....

DO YOUR UNDERUSED BRAIN A FAVOR!!! GO SEE INCEPTION!! RIGHT NOW!! SERIOUSLY, STOP READING AND GO!


Attendance: 2/5
Crazy Fan Boy Factor: 1/5
Crowd Response: 4/5

-----------------------------------------------------

Production Value: 5/5
Action: 5/5
Plot: 5/5
Time on the edge of your seat: About 80 minutes, ironically starting when the "fasten seatbelt" light goes off.

Overall: 10/10

Back to the Future

Back to the Future is one of those movies that I can watch maybe nine or ten times, but still every time I see it feels like the first time. Generally, this quality is a good one for a movie to have (conversely, I have seen films that felt like four sit-throughs just to see once- cough cough Grown Ups).

Its 1985 in Hill Valley CA. Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) is a 17 year old slacker who shows his disdain for authority by skateboarding, playing guitar, and wearing suspenders without putting them over his shoulders. Take that, establishment!

He is friends with Doc Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd), a wacko scientist who has just solved man's age-old question- how can we sell more DeLoreans?

Just kidding, but he does turn a DeLorean into a time machine somehow, and Marty winds up in 1955, face to face with the 17 year old versions of his meek father George and amorous mother Lorraine.

I really do love the Back to the Future series, and the first one remains my favorite of the three. As Scott mentioned in his survey, the way that the writers played with the concept of going back in time and meeting your parents is just so clever that the premise keeps the entire movie entertaining by itself.

The film takes a microscope to the 50's decade with pop culture references, era appropriate costuming, and a great soundtrack. It is especially interesting to consider the amount of change that happened to Hill Valley in the 30 years separating Marty from his own time of 1985. Farms where there should be malls, empty fields where Marty's street should be, a bank where now a porno theater stands. Funny to think that now, 25 years later, Marty's house is probably also a mall (eminent domain sucks don't it Marty?)

The film chugs along at an impressive clip, and before we know it we are hit with not one, but THREE climaxes (George laying out Biff, the first kiss, the clock tower/lightning scene) not to mention a massive cliff hanger that was not even intended to spawn two more films in the first place. The filmmakers obviously did something very right.

They best part of the film, in my opinion at least, is seeing all the changes Marty caused when he does make it back to 1985. I won't give anything away but suffice it to say that the ending is classic.

They playfulness of Back to the Future is enough to get it a solid rating in my book. It deals with a preposterous subject matter in a manner that is not overly serious but still dramatic. I will ignore the fact that the whole thing is one big plot hole, because I grew up with it and these great characters, and because it is so timeless (ha).


Production Value: 4/5
Action: 4/5
Humor: 4/5
Plot Holes: 1.21 Gigawatts worth of them but who cares??

Overall: 8/10

Featured New Release Poll- 7/23

The new poll for next weekend's new releases is up.

Vote between either Salt, a stylish espionage thriller with Angelina Jolie, or Ramona and Beezus , an adaptation of the popular children's novel by Beverly Cleary.

Can't say I am pulling for anything in particular... :-/

Winner: Inception

Well there were a few hours left to vote on the poll but I'm calling it- The Sorcerer's Apprentice didn't put up much of a fight as Inception dominated the poll with 100% of the vote.

Wait that can't be right... let me recheck that... yep, NO ONE voted for The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Ouch.

Words cannot express how much I have been anticipating this film. Stay tuned.

Despicable Me

I'd like to start this review off with a special belated happy birthday for my good friend Emily, who came along with Stephanie and me to Thursday night's premiere of Despicable Me. It was her first time at a midnight movie and hopefully a good kickoff to her day.

Now, on to the main attraction: Despicable Me.

The choice everyone has to make these days seemingly, 2D or 3D, was unanimous as Emily Stephanie and I all agreed that we enjoy 2D more. (editor's note: I hate 3D)

However, I can honestly say that this movie made me want to see it again... in 3D no less.

How you ask? Well, for starters, it is a good movie, which I will get to in a moment. But there are many instances in the film that you could tell were designed solely to play with the 3D (further proof that the trend is, in fact, a gimmick). This playfulness is something that has been missing from most 3D movies, especially the ones that were post-converted to 3D, not originally shot in 3D. I have heard terrible things about Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender.

As for the overall quality, Despicable Me is a charming, if not overly innovative, animated flick. It lacks the substance of Pixar's work but still has its heart in the right place.

The main character is "super" villain Gru, a humanized version of Wile E. Coyote. He has schemes to spare but is lacking in execution. He and his band of minions (hybrid Oompa Loompa/ Twinkie the Kid cross breeds) set out to pull the greatest act of villainy the world has ever seen.




A wrench is thrown into Gru's dastardly plans as three girls he initially adopts to aid him end up as more of a distraction than he had bargained for (the littlest girl Agnes is cute to the point where it is incomprehensible that she had not yet been adopted).


Then there is Vector, the weaselly, sea-life obsessed rival to Gru's enterprises. I never really bought him as a threatening character, but he does do a good job serving as the roadrunner to Gru's coyote. He has all the cool gadgets, the spiffy ultra modern fortress, and an impressive stolen monument cleverly disguised in his back yard.

Gru must make a decision: is his quest for the ultimate act of villainy getting in the way of his relationship with the girls, or the other way around?

Naturally mistakes are made, lessons are learned, and we are sent home happy. But the plot really isn't the selling point of Despicable Me. Rather, that would be the spectacles and the laughs.

The animation is vibrant and the humor is ever-present, with plenty of physical gags for the kids and slightly more sophisticated laughs for the parents. The voice acting too is top notch, Gru is characterized so well that I forgot that Steve Carell was even involved. And Russell Brand did an amazing job in his part (I didn't even realize who he played until getting on the imdb page).

Despicable Me is a good film, hopefully it has the staying power of such franchises as Shrek and Ice Age.


Attendance: 4/5
Crazy Fan Boy Factor: 1/5
Crowd Response: 4/5

-----------------------------------------------------

Production Value: 4/5
Animation: 4/5
Humor: 4/5
Agnes Cuteness Quotient: 9/5

Overall: 8/10

Featured New Release Poll- 7/16

My most anticipated poll of the summer has officially arrived.... that's right, Nicolas Cage in The Sorcerer's Apprentice!!!

Haha just kidding. That movie does come out this week, though. It is an expansion and reimagining of the classic Disney 'toon featured in Fantasia. How that works, I have no idea. If you want me to find out, send me to see it.

Or, you could do me a favor and vote for Inception, probably the only movie this summer I would actually go to at midnight by choice. The psychological thriller stars Leonardo DiCaprio and is directed by Christopher Nolan, my favorite contemporary director.

So which will it be, Inception or The Sorcerer's Apprentice?

Winner: Despicable Me

For the second week in a row, we had a dominating performance at the polls as Despicable Me ran away from Predators with 76% of the vote.

I'll check this out at the Westminster Promenade at midnight!

Next viewing assignment...

In honor of the 25th anniversary of its release, the next movie I am going to watch is Back to the Future, which came out in July of 1985.

This was selected by Marianne's (Steel Magnolias) husband Scott. On his survey he writes, "I loved the actors and the fun they had with time travel, and I loved the comedy". Great, Scott! (haha)

Back to the Future is an old favorite of mine but I don't mind re-watching it.

Transformers

It appeared on the screen, an iconic symbol of American ingenuity and workmanship, and my heart sank; "Oh god, he's going to do it. Michael Bay is going to blow up the Hoover Dam."

Could I have thought anything differently after having already sat through an hour and a half of Transformers, a movie by the director of such "films" as Bad Boys 2 and Pearl Harbor? Certainly not.

A bit of damage aside, Bay resisted the temptation to destroy the landmark completely, which might be a high watermark in his directorial career.


Early on in the film, we meet Sam Whitwicky (Shia LeBeouf), the principle non robot. He is descended from a polar explorer who found a few alien artifacts trapped in the ice. Sam buys a used car and things get interesting. Soon, the nice Autobots and mean Decepticons are transforming all over the place, searching for an all-powerful talisman.

Let me just say now that by no means is Transformers a bad movie. I had never watched it before the other night and I can only say that I found it to be absolutely ridiculous, and that's considering I already knew it was about transforming robots from outer space.

First of all, the coordinates for the allspark or whatever that thing was, were somehow encoded onto a 100 year old pair of glasses? Which apparently can survive a twenty foot fall onto concrete?

Then, when they finally find the damn thing, they decide to hide it from the Decepticons in a big city?

(The following was probably a conversation between Bay and his best friend Jerry Bruckheimer) "Hey, I have an idea, you should have them bring the doohickey the bad guys want to a populated city!" "Oh yeah! More property damage!"


Granted, this does, as intended, lead to a bitching action sequence, but is it believable? Even in a movie about robot aliens, no. No it is not. But that's ok, because that's not what Bay is about. He is all about interspersing action with more action and leaving a little room for some characters to say lines that explain why they are going to blow something up. Or do do insane and unnecessary things like ride a motorcycle towards an evil robot, leap off and slide 100 feet on the pavement through its legs, shooting a grenade launcher into its chest WHILE IT IS SIMULTANEOUSLY GETTING NUKED BY A FREAKING F22. Uhh, overkill much, Michael Bay? That's not how physics work, sorry. I can think of about 124 different ways the guy should have died in that sequence (not to mention all the idiot soldiers should have died of thirst in the first hour of the film anyway).

Oh and who in the hell was that Australian girl? Why was she even in this movie? That whole subplot was not needed at all, since there was no plot for it to be a sub plot FOR.

But I digress.


Transformers is maybe a half hour too long, thanks to an inordinate (for a Michael Bay movie) amount of exposition and non action scenes in the first hour. I would have thought I would appreciate this. But you know whats coming from the first minutes, so it would have been better in this case to just get there a little sooner. An agonizing scene after Sam meets the Autobots involves him searching his room for the glasses for a few minutes, being interrogated by his parents, and the Autobots bumbling around the yard (physical comedy doesn't work well with CG non-human characters).

The acting was pretty solid for an action flick, except for Megan Fox, who brought the entire cast down. Plot, well there was one and that's all that I have to say about that.

This film stands out thanks to its integration of impressive CGI and live stunts. You really can tell the difference between a real and CG bus getting ripped in half. So kudos to Bay for blowing some real stuff up. And for leaving the Hoover Dam alone.

If you are willing to turn your brain off and just watch the robot parts flying all over the screen this movie is awesome. If you care about human characters too much, it might be a problem.


Production Value: 5/5
Action: 4/5
Acting Performances: 1/5
Can you tell: I don't like Michael Bay?

Overall: 6/10

Top Five "Cast Against Type" Film Roles

I don't know about you, but I really appreciate a movie with great casting. Casting directors in Hollywood all too often go with the safe choice for their hero, the romantic interest, the goofy friend, the villain. These are called stock characters, and the actors who find themselves always playing the same sort of character are "typecast" (Robert DeNiro as mobster, Samuel L. Jackson as BAMF, Owen Wilson as Dweeby but Sincere Nice Guy, etc).

When a film steps outside the safety of typecasting, it sometimes can end up disastrously. For example, John Wayne played Genghis Khan. Nuff said. However, there are a number of instances where the "wrong" casting decision was oh so right. Here are my five favorite examples.

5. Kate Winslet as the unstable extrovert, Jim Carrey as the reserved shy one in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind


This example is interesting because here you see two seasoned actors who are essentially using the others' style in their performance. Winslet plays the precocious and somewhat scatter brained Clementine, the foil to Carrey's Joel. A mopey outcast with a dry sense of humor, this is the type of role one would typically see played by, oh, I don't know, Michael Cera comes to mind (if this film were made in five years by less courageous filmmakers, I guarantee Cera would play this role). To have Joel played by Carrey gives him an edgier sadness. We yearn even harder to see him crack his trademark 20 million dollar grin. Conversely, the usually prim and proper Winslet inhabiting the character of Clem makes her seem all the more eccentric.

This casting decision works wonders in the film, particularly considering the mind-bending nature of he plot as a whole.

4. Tom Hanks as the mafia hitman in Road to Perdition


This often overlooked film features a few bold casting decisions, but most notable is Hanks as the protagonist Michael Sullivan, a gunman for the Irish mafia.

Hanks could have easily made a career similar to Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler, playing buffoons in 80's comedies. He switched it up in the 90's, taking on serious roles in Philidelphia and Forrest Gump, cementing himself as one of the top leading men of the era. But a GOOD guy leading man, not the action hero. We don't see Tom Hanks as an unsavory murderer; he only kills Nazis and the occasional convict, right? Oh, how wrong we were.

So why cast Hanks as Sullivan? If one looks at the character as an ordinary gangster, the decision appears flawed. Someone tougher, Jason Statham perhaps, could have fit the bill better. But Hanks lends an authenticity to the role, the everyman feel that most gangster types lack. This is especially important as the relationship between Sullivan and his son is the cornerstone of the film. Sullivan, as played by Hanks, is a family man who just happens to also be a ruthless murderer.

3. Heath Ledger as the psychopath covered in makeup in The Dark Knight


One of the unwritten rules of casting in Hollywood is if you are going to go to the trouble of casting an exceptionally good looking person, you had better make them look as good in the film as possible. If you want them to look ugly or scary, well there are plenty of ugly or scary looking people to cast (read: Steve Buscemi).

Christopher Nolan subverted this rule and went for quality acting over a look or a type when he went to Heath Ledger to play his Joker. And the effect is disturbing.

I have heard people argue that Jack Nicholson is still the best Joker but lets face it, Jack plays the Joker in EVERY role. If you are looking for a creep, everyone knows Jack is the one to go to. Heath, on the other hand, was the romantic lead, the studly bad boy, the gay shepard. Basically, the good looking leading man type.

Thats what makes his performance in The Dark Knight so entrancing. His face smeared with make up and marked by scars, the pretty face has been completely disfigured (metaphor perhaps for the eventual transformation of another character in the film).

2. Elisabeth Shue as the stripper with a heart of gold in Leaving Las Vegas


In 1995, a mere five years after Julia Roberts was a pretty woman, Elisabeth Shue was best known as the girl next door from such films as The Karate Kid, Adventures in Babysitting, and the Back to the Future trilogy. This background made her a strange choice to play Las Vegas hooker Sera, who is befriended by Nicolas Cage's alcoholic Ben.

It is this background, however, that gives her character the vulnerability necessary to make her sympathetic to the audience. Her plight, being forced to watch the slow demise of Ben, is heartbreaking, and she plays the character perfectly to elicit the same frustration from the audience.

1. Henry Fonda as an even slightly less than moral person in Once Upon a Time in the West


Ok, ok, as the BAD GUY. You know, the villain? The one you want the good guy to kill at the end? I know, its hard to believe, but Henry Fonda is a bad dude in Sergio Leone's greatest film.

Before working on Once Upon a Time in the West, Fonda was the everyman, the epitome of the good guy, playing such endearing roles as Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath and Juror 8 in 12 Angry Men, along with a bunch of other honest men in a world gone wrong (Mr. Roberts, The Wrong Man, etc).

So why then would Leone choose this everyman as Frank, the villain of Once Upon a Time in the West?

A peek at the Frank's introductory scene will give us a clue.


McBain Massacre Scene

The camera pans around from behind, slowly revealing Fonda to be the man in charge of the group of killers. Imagine what that must have felt like for a viewer in 1968. To help, here is another Fonda clip:


Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men

That is the Fonda people knew and mostly still remember. That is why his performance in Once Upon a Time in the West is so remarkable. Leone took a well established nice guy and made the audience want to see him strung up. Powerful stuff.

Next viewing assignment...

In the spirit of the summer mega-blockbuster, my next film to watch that has been chosen by one of you is Transformers, the 2007 spectacle with Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, and a bunch of computer generated robots who are the real stars.

Transformers was selected by my friend from high school marching band Kyle, who wrote on his survey that this is his favorite movie because he likes robots.

I saw about a third of Transformers once and didn't get into it enough to see it through to the end, but this time I will, without fail.